Antitrust laws govern corporate activity in the marketplace. These laws encourage competition by regulating mergers and acquisitions and preventing monopolies, conflicts of interest, and predatory pricing. The primary purpose of antitrust is to protect the interests of the consumer. But how should antitrust legislation be applied to best serve that goal? Today’s antitrust is often associated with the idea of big corporations and competition in the global marketplace. But before the 1970s, antitrust laws were used to protect small companies at the expense of larger or more efficient competitors. The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, the first antitrust law, was designed to protect consumers from predatory corporate practices. In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court began to interpret the Act as primarily protecting small businesses, not consumers. By the middle of the century, the Warren Court exclusively applied antitrust as a means of helping small businesses and hindering large corporations. The prevailing theory was that any loss of competition in the marketplace was bad for society and bad for consumers; any corporation that had a large share of the market was automatically suspect. In the 1970s, antitrust theories began to change. This was due, in large part, to Robert Bork’s The Antitrust Paradox. Bork, writing in 1978, said that antitrust theory during this time was a “mélange of valid insights and obviously incorrect—sometimes fantastic—assumptions about the motivations and effects of business behavior.” He called it the “unknown policy.” Bork proposed that the first priority of antitrust ought to be protection of the consumer, regardless of the impact this might have on any size of business. He argued that supporting inefficient businesses raised prices for consumers, while only maintaining the perception of competition in the marketplace. Bork advocated for a “consumer welfare” standard (which today we would call a total welfare standard): “The only goal that should guide interpretation of the antitrust laws is the welfare of consumers. Departures from that standard destroy the consistency and predictability of the law; run counter to the legislative intent, as that intent is conventionally derived; and damage the integrity of the judicial process by involving the courts in grossly political choices for which neither the statutes nor any other acceptable source provide any guidance.” The consumer welfare standard meant prioritizing the most efficient optimal process which resulted in the lowest cost for the consumer. For example, if a company that sells TVs merges with or acquires a company that makes TVs, that can simplify the process and thus the cost of the TV sold to a consumer. In antitrust, as in other areas of law, Bork was adamant that the courts should refrain from making policy through their decisions. He outlined a process where judges could use basic economic analysis and clear rules to determine the best course of action in an antitrust case, rather than relying on good intentions and questionable data. Judge Bork did not predict the enormous impact of his antitrust scholarship. Economic analysis is now the standard practice for most judges, policymakers, and academics who deal with antitrust issues. Current critics of antitrust policy complain that it is too concerned about economics and prices, and overly protective of large corporations. They argue that antitrust laws should be used to regulate large companies like Amazon and Google, and promote desirable social goals such as climate change regulation, regardless of the economic consequences involved. Whether antitrust doctrine needs an update or a new direction is a matter of debate. What’s certain is that Robert Bork helped to revolutionize the rules. The free-market, global economy as we know it today exists partly because of his influence.